[Saeko]

^ Everyone's a genius and a PhD on the internet.

[Potemkin]

One could -- and people did -- say the same of slavery.

Indeed they did. And they were right about that, as they are right about capitalism. Modes of production do not end just because the ruling elite wake up one morning and suddenly realise that they have been running an 'immoral' system all this time. Slavery ended in the British Empire and (somewhat later) in the United States because it could no longer compete with a new mode of production - industrial capitalism. Everything else is just post-hoc rationalisation of economic necessity.

^ Everyone's a genius and a PhD on the internet.

Some of us are, and some of us aren't.

[Decky]

I bet Pote wears his gown and mortar board even when he is going down the shop for his morning Buckfast.

[Potemkin]

Yes. Yes I do. And I always insist that all my friends and relatives should stand up every time I walk into the room, as a mark of respect. After all, certain social standards must be maintained.

[Rei Murasame]

One could -- and people did -- say the same of slavery.

And I do say the same of it. See Potemkin's response as well.

See also:

[...]Empirically, until now there has not been a long-term tendency for the growth rate of the global capitalist economy to fall. As a result, until now there has not yet been strong empirical evidence in support of Marx's hypothesis.

However, after centuries of limitless accumulation and growth, the global capitalist economy has expanded to the point that the underlying material foundation (the earth's resources and the ecological system) for accumulation has been largely undermined by accumulation itself. If the analysis presented in this paper turns out to be largely correct, then the world economy will stop growing and possibly enter into a period of prolonged contraction at some point after the mid-21st century. That is, the world economic growth rate would fall towards zero and possibly become negative.

What would happen to the profit rate? Given positive net investment share, zero or negative economic growth rate implies that the profit rate would have to fall towards zero. This would confirm the “law of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall” (though under a very different context).

Can capitalism survive with zero profit rate? Ironically, the scenario of zero profit rate would be consistent with the "golden rule steady state" in the neoclassical Solowian model where the marginal product of capital equals the rate of depreciation and consumption is maximized. But if the profit rate does fall to zero, then what's the point of being a capitalist?

What could be the "counteracting influences" to such a scenario? If the economic growth rate falls towards zero, then the profit rate will not fall towards zero if and only if the net investment share falls towards zero or become negative. [22]

It is not clear how the net investment could ever fall towards zero so long as the profit is positive and the capitalist system functions normally. Capital accumulation could bring about more profit in the future and those who do not engage in capital accumulation risk losing their status as capitalists. Therefore, under normal conditions, it seems always "rational" for individual capitalists to use a portion of their profit for the purpose of accumulation. One might say that the capitalist class as a whole faces an insoluble "prisoners' dilemma."

It is conceivable that as the profit rate falls, the net investment share would also tend to fall. However, given the unstable nature of the capitalist economy, instead of leading to a stable state with zero net investment, the fall of the profit rate could lead to a general collapse of the investors' confidence. In that case, the net investment share could become negative, that is, the investment level would fall below what is required to replace the depreciation of capital. Not only there would be no more capital accumulation, but capitalism would also fail to maintain simple reproduction.

Hypothetically, if the net investment does fall to and manages to stabilize at zero, it means the entire capitalist profit is absorbed by capitalist consumption. In other words, the profit completely degenerates into the rent, and the capitalist class completely degenerates into a parasitical exploiter class. Can such a purely parasitical capitalism be politically and socially viable? No exploiter class could ever exist and rule the society if it does not play certain objective social function. The prosperity of the Egyptian and the Chinese empires depended on their effective management of the large-scale water works on the Nile and the Yellow River. The rule of the Catholic Church depended on its monopoly over education and knowledge in the medieval Europe. For capitalism, "development of the productive forces of social labour is the historical task and justification of capital." (Marx, 1967[1894]: 259)

The word "justification" is not used in the moral sense. The basic argument is that no social system can exist and be stable for a long period of time simply based [only] on repression or deception. To be "sustainable", a ruling class has to play certain indispensable function required by the mode of material production at the time. From this perspective, the capitalist class has played a historically useful role through its unique tendency to use surplus product for the purpose of capital accumulation, thus having contributed to the development of productive forces. Once it becomes a purely parasitical class (and therefore becomes "dispensable") there would be nothing that can prevent the exploited great majority from rising up.

[Truth To Power]

One could -- and people did -- say the same of slavery.

Indeed they did. And they were right about that, as they are right about capitalism.

They were most certainly not right about it, any more than they are right about capitalism. Both are systems of robbery, oppression and plunder that claim to be justified by some indispensable contribution by those who profit by them, but who are actually just the non-contributing beneficiaries of massive, systematic, institutionalized, and wholly gratuitous injustice.

Modes of production do not end just because the ruling elite wake up one morning and suddenly realise that they have been running an 'immoral' system all this time.

An absurd strawman. In the slave-owning American South, the mode of production did not even end with the abolition of slavery: sharecroppers worked much as the slaves had done, under similar conditions, and for as little reward.

Slavery ended in the British Empire and (somewhat later) in the United States because it could no longer compete with a new mode of production - industrial capitalism.

Garbage. Slavery ended in Europe long before industrial capitalism was a significant economic factor, yet persisted in America long after. Brain-dead Marxist analysis cannot understand or explain this historical fact, which is easily understood if one can find a willingness to know the facts about land. European landowners had no need to own their tenants as slaves, because all the good land had already been appropriated as private property; the landless consequently had no option but to offer their labor to employers, under any terms possible, or starve to death. As a result, landowners did not have to own them to be able to treat them like slaves. This was the meaning of the Enclosures, which reduced free labor to slave-like status by removing its access to land.

In America, labor had to be physically and legally restrained, with fetters and deeds of ownership, because there was so much good land available that mistreated free laborers would simply leave and take up some good land of their own. The end of slavery in America had nothing to do with any "new mode of industrial capitalism": it ended when all the good land had been taken up, and the landless black (and many white) workers could safely be treated like slaves without any need actually to own them, as landless peasants in Europe had been treated for centuries without being owned. Indeed, the peculiar and unexpected lack of improvement in the condition of the former slaves was widely remarked at the time, but vanishingly few understood it. Certainly no Marxist could ever understand it:

"During the war I served in a Kentucky regiment in the Federal army. When the war
broke out, my father owned sixty slaves. I had not been back to my old Kentucky
home for years until a short time ago, when I was met by one of my father's old
negroes, who said to me: 'Master George, you say you set us free; but before God,
I'm worse off than when I belonged to your father.' The planters, on the other hand, are contented
with the change. They say, ' How foolish it was in us to go to war for slavery. We get labor cheaper
now than when we owned the slaves.' How do they get it cheaper? Why, in the shape of rents
they take more of the labor of the negro than they could under slavery, for then they were compelled
to return him sufficient food, clothing and medical attendance to keep him well, and were
compelled by conscience and public opinion, as well as by law, to keep him when he
could no longer work. Now their interest and responsibility cease when they have
got all the work out of him they can."

From a letter by George M. Jackson, St. Louis. Dated August 15, 1885.
Reprinted in Social Problems, by Henry George.

Everything else is just post-hoc rationalisation of economic necessity.

Marxist claptrap. Slavery was already long gone from most of Europe before industrial capitalism, because the good land was all taken; yet in America, by contrast, it persisted despite the most advanced industrial capitalism, exactly until all the good land was taken.

^ Everyone's a genius and a PhD on the internet.

Some of us are, and some of us aren't.

And some are one, but not the other.

One could -- and people did -- say the same of slavery.

And I do say the same of it. See Potemkin's response as well.

See my demolition thereof.

What you are essentially saying is that the slave owner, by plying his whip to the slave's back to get more work out of him, is making an economic contribution, securing a more productive allocation of the slave's labor than he would choose on his own. You attribute the slave's product to his owner, and ignore what he would have produced as a free worker. The falsity and absurdity -- and immorality -- of such claims is too evident to require any further refutation.

See also:

A silly load of Marxist claptrap with no basis in fact or logic:

[...]Empirically, until now there has not been a long-term tendency for the growth rate of the global capitalist economy to fall. As a result, until now there has not yet been strong empirical evidence in support of Marx's hypothesis.

IOW, history has reliably proved Marx wrong. However, being proved wrong in no way stimulates any willingness on the part of Marxists to consider the possibility that they actually ARE wrong:

However, after centuries of limitless accumulation and growth, the global capitalist economy has expanded to the point that the underlying material foundation (the earth's resources and the ecological system) for accumulation has been largely undermined by accumulation itself. If the analysis presented in this paper turns out to be largely correct, then the world economy will stop growing and possibly enter into a period of prolonged contraction at some point after the mid-21st century. That is, the world economic growth rate would fall towards zero and possibly become negative.

What would happen to the profit rate? Given positive net investment share, zero or negative economic growth rate implies that the profit rate would have to fall towards zero. This would confirm the “law of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall” (though under a very different context).

Can capitalism survive with zero profit rate? Ironically, the scenario of zero profit rate would be consistent with the "golden rule steady state" in the neoclassical Solowian model where the marginal product of capital equals the rate of depreciation and consumption is maximized. But if the profit rate does fall to zero, then what's the point of being a capitalist?

What could be the "counteracting influences" to such a scenario? If the economic growth rate falls towards zero, then the profit rate will not fall towards zero if and only if the net investment share falls towards zero or become negative. [22]

It is not clear how the net investment could ever fall towards zero so long as the profit is positive and the capitalist system functions normally. Capital accumulation could bring about more profit in the future and those who do not engage in capital accumulation risk losing their status as capitalists. Therefore, under normal conditions, it seems always "rational" for individual capitalists to use a portion of their profit for the purpose of accumulation. One might say that the capitalist class as a whole faces an insoluble "prisoners' dilemma."

It is conceivable that as the profit rate falls, the net investment share would also tend to fall. However, given the unstable nature of the capitalist economy, instead of leading to a stable state with zero net investment, the fall of the profit rate could lead to a general collapse of the investors' confidence. In that case, the net investment share could become negative, that is, the investment level would fall below what is required to replace the depreciation of capital. Not only there would be no more capital accumulation, but capitalism would also fail to maintain simple reproduction.

Hypothetically, if the net investment does fall to and manages to stabilize at zero, it means the entire capitalist profit is absorbed by capitalist consumption. In other words, the profit completely degenerates into the rent, and the capitalist class completely degenerates into a parasitical exploiter class. Can such a purely parasitical capitalism be politically and socially viable? No exploiter class could ever exist and rule the society if it does not play certain objective social function. The prosperity of the Egyptian and the Chinese empires depended on their effective management of the large-scale water works on the Nile and the Yellow River. The rule of the Catholic Church depended on its monopoly over education and knowledge in the medieval Europe. For capitalism, "development of the productive forces of social labour is the historical task and justification of capital." (Marx, 1967[1894]: 259)

The word "justification" is not used in the moral sense. The basic argument is that no social system can exist and be stable for a long period of time simply based [only] on repression or deception. To be "sustainable", a ruling class has to play certain indispensable function required by the mode of material production at the time. From this perspective, the capitalist class has played a historically useful role through its unique tendency to use surplus product for the purpose of capital accumulation, thus having contributed to the development of productive forces. Once it becomes a purely parasitical class (and therefore becomes "dispensable") there would be nothing that can prevent the exploited great majority from rising up.

Except their belief in this sort of Marxist-capitalist nonsense.

[Potemkin]

Marxist claptrap. Slavery was already long gone from most of Europe before industrial capitalism, because the good land was all taken; yet in America, by contrast, it persisted despite the most advanced industrial capitalism, exactly [i]until[/i] all the good land was taken.

The serfs of medieval Europe were bonded labourers; they were forbidden by law to leave the land to which they were legally attached, and their hereditary feudal lord had the right to extract a certain number of days of free labour from them for the privilege of being allowed to farm on his land. The very name 'serf' is derived from the Latin word 'servus', meaning literally 'slave', and the serfs themselves were the descendants of the slaves who had worked the latifundia estates during the late Roman Empire. The late Roman Empire in the West gradually morphed into medieval Europe, rather than being overthrown and replaced by something completely new. The Enclosures of the 16th to the 18th centuries gradually robbed these serfs of what little common land still existed, and their release from their legal attachment to the land proletarianised them. Most of them had to move to the new cities and find employment, or face starvation. This was a necessary part of the rise of industrial capitalism as a mode of production. America was colonised by European settlers who had already been freed from the legal bonds of feudalism, and who (by expropriating the Native Americans) were able to establish themselves as small-holding peasants with no feudal master; in other words, as a class of petty-bourgeois proprietors. This fact has shaped American political and social attitudes ever since.

And slavery continued in Europe even after the serfs had been proletarianised - it was simply 'outsourced' to the colonies of the new European empires, and the profits extracted from it were repatriated to the imperialist nation and invested in industrial production. It was, in fact, the profits from the slave trade and from the slave-based enterprises of the New World and the Caribbean which kick-started the industrial revolution in Britain in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

[Drlee]

Garbage. Slavery ended in Europe long before industrial capitalism was a significant economic factor, yet persisted in America long after.

Why would you say this. Neither of these statements is true. Moreover it demonstrates an absurd lack of understanding of the conditions in the UK and US of the 19th Century.

In the slave-owning American South, the mode of production did not even end with the abolition of slavery: sharecroppers worked much as the slaves had done, under similar conditions, and for as little reward.

This is also not true. You should educate yourself on the economics of share cropping. But even setting that aside there is a not so subtle difference between being beaten for speaking back, having your children raped and sold to others and being chained because you want to go for a walk. Can you see this difference?

In America, labor had to be physically and legally restrained, with fetters and deeds of ownership, because there was so much good land available that mistreated free laborers would simply leave and take up some good land of their own. The end of slavery in America had nothing to do with any "new mode of industrial capitalism": it ended when all the good land had been taken up, and the landless black (and many white) workers could safely be treated like slaves without any need actually to own them, as landless peasants in Europe had been treated for centuries without being owned. Indeed, the peculiar and unexpected lack of improvement in the condition of the former slaves was widely remarked at the time, but vanishingly few understood it.

You need to take an economy course. What does this nonsense even mean anyway?

Your silly letter is not even relevant to the discussion. It is a racist set-piece. But since you find truth in slave letters, here is one you can consider:

Dayton, Ohio,

August 7, 1865

To My Old Master, Colonel P.H. Anderson, Big Spring, Tennessee

Sir: I got your letter, and was glad to find that you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this, for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Colonel Martin's to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable. Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again, and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville Hospital, but one of the neighbors told me that Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance.

I want to know particularly what the good chance is you propose to give me. I am doing tolerably well here. I get twenty-five dollars a month, with victuals and clothing; have a comfortable home for Mandy,—the folks call her Mrs. Anderson,—and the children—Milly, Jane, and Grundy—go to school and are learning well. The teacher says Grundy has a head for a preacher. They go to Sunday school, and Mandy and me attend church regularly. We are kindly treated. Sometimes we overhear others saying, "Them colored people were slaves" down in Tennessee. The children feel hurt when they hear such remarks; but I tell them it was no disgrace in Tennessee to belong to Colonel Anderson. Many darkeys would have been proud, as I used to be, to call you master. Now if you will write and say what wages you will give me, I will be better able to decide whether it would be to my advantage to move back again.

As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free papers in 1864 from the Provost-Marshal-General of the Department of Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you were disposed to treat us justly and kindly; and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for thirty-two years, and Mandy twenty years. At twenty-five dollars a month for me, and two dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to eleven thousand six hundred and eighty dollars. Add to this the interest for the time our wages have been kept back, and deduct what you paid for our clothing, and three doctor's visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to. Please send the money by Adams's Express, in care of V. Winters, Esq., Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past, we can have little faith in your promises in the future. We trust the good Maker has opened your eyes to the wrongs which you and your fathers have done to me and my fathers, in making us toil for you for generations without recompense. Here I draw my wages every Saturday night; but in Tennessee there was never any pay-day for the negroes any more than for the horses and cows. Surely there will be a day of reckoning for those who defraud the laborer of his hire.

In answering this letter, please state if there would be any safety for my Milly and Jane, who are now grown up, and both good-looking girls. You know how it was with poor Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve—and die, if it come to that—than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. You will also please state if there has been any schools opened for the colored children in your neighborhood. The great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits.

Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.

From your old servant,

Jourdon Anderson.

[Rei Murasame]

What you are essentially saying is that the slave owner, by plying his whip to the slave's back to get more work out of him, is making an economic contribution, securing a more productive allocation of the slave's labor than he would choose on his own. You attribute the slave's product to his owner, and ignore what he would have produced as a free worker. The falsity and absurdity -- and immorality -- of such claims is too evident to require any further refutation.

Well, if you're going to be a petty-moralist then I simply won't debate you. I'm tired of hearing about 'morality'.

[Truth To Power]

What you are essentially saying is that the slave owner, by plying his whip to the slave's back to get more work out of him, is making an economic contribution, securing a more productive allocation of the slave's labor than he would choose on his own. You attribute the slave's product to his owner, and ignore what he would have produced as a free worker. The falsity and absurdity -- and immorality -- of such claims is too evident to require any further refutation.

Well, if you're going to be a petty-moralist then I simply won't debate you.

You have been refuted, you know it, and you have no answers. Simple.

I'm tired of hearing about 'morality'.

IOW, you have decided not to know the fact that you are rationalizing evil.

This is the Morals and Ethics forum. Deal with it.

Garbage. Slavery ended in Europe long before industrial capitalism was a significant economic factor, yet persisted in America long after.

Why would you say this. Neither of these statements is true.

Both are.

Moreover it demonstrates an absurd lack of understanding of the conditions in the UK and US of the 19th Century.

The UK is not Europe, and I am well aware of conditions in both places.

In the slave-owning American South, the mode of production did not even end with the abolition of slavery: sharecroppers worked much as the slaves had done, under similar conditions, and for as little reward.

This is also not true.

It is definitely true.

You should educate yourself on the economics of share cropping.

I know far more about it than you.

But even setting that aside there is a not so subtle difference between being beaten for speaking back, having your children raped and sold to others and being chained because you want to go for a walk. Can you see this difference?

I see it very well: you are simply unaware that very similar treatment was afforded landless laborers in Europe before the modern era.

In America, labor had to be physically and legally restrained, with fetters and deeds of ownership, because there was so much good land available that mistreated free laborers would simply leave and take up some good land of their own. The end of slavery in America had nothing to do with any "new mode of industrial capitalism": it ended when all the good land had been taken up, and the landless black (and many white) workers could safely be treated like slaves without any need actually to own them, as landless peasants in Europe had been treated for centuries without being owned. Indeed, the peculiar and unexpected lack of improvement in the condition of the former slaves was widely remarked at the time, but vanishingly few understood it.

You need to take an economy course.

I have, and know far more of the subject than you.

What does this nonsense even mean anyway?

That you are wrong.

Your silly letter is not even relevant to the discussion.

It shows the truth.

It is a racist set-piece.

There is nothing racist about it.

But since you find truth in slave letters, here is one you can consider:

Dayton, Ohio,

August 7, 1865

To My Old Master, Colonel P.H. Anderson, Big Spring, Tennessee

Sir: I got your letter, and was glad to find that you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this, for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Colonel Martin's to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable. Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again, and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville Hospital, but one of the neighbors told me that Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance.

I want to know particularly what the good chance is you propose to give me. I am doing tolerably well here. I get twenty-five dollars a month, with victuals and clothing; have a comfortable home for Mandy,—the folks call her Mrs. Anderson,—and the children—Milly, Jane, and Grundy—go to school and are learning well. The teacher says Grundy has a head for a preacher. They go to Sunday school, and Mandy and me attend church regularly. We are kindly treated. Sometimes we overhear others saying, "Them colored people were slaves" down in Tennessee. The children feel hurt when they hear such remarks; but I tell them it was no disgrace in Tennessee to belong to Colonel Anderson. Many darkeys would have been proud, as I used to be, to call you master. Now if you will write and say what wages you will give me, I will be better able to decide whether it would be to my advantage to move back again.

As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free papers in 1864 from the Provost-Marshal-General of the Department of Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you were disposed to treat us justly and kindly; and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for thirty-two years, and Mandy twenty years. At twenty-five dollars a month for me, and two dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to eleven thousand six hundred and eighty dollars. Add to this the interest for the time our wages have been kept back, and deduct what you paid for our clothing, and three doctor's visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to. Please send the money by Adams's Express, in care of V. Winters, Esq., Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past, we can have little faith in your promises in the future. We trust the good Maker has opened your eyes to the wrongs which you and your fathers have done to me and my fathers, in making us toil for you for generations without recompense. Here I draw my wages every Saturday night; but in Tennessee there was never any pay-day for the negroes any more than for the horses and cows. Surely there will be a day of reckoning for those who defraud the laborer of his hire.

In answering this letter, please state if there would be any safety for my Milly and Jane, who are now grown up, and both good-looking girls. You know how it was with poor Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve—and die, if it come to that—than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. You will also please state if there has been any schools opened for the colored children in your neighborhood. The great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits.

Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.

From your old servant,

Jourdon Anderson.

This letter, which I have seen before, is self-evidently from an exceptionally intelligent and well-educated former slave, and his greater economic success than the sharecropper's is therefore not representative of the norm for landless white laborers, let alone former slaves.

[Rei Murasame]

This is the Morals and Ethics forum. Deal with it.

True, I am indeed in the petty-moralist subforum, accidentally. My bad.

For some reason I thought this thread was somewhere sane, like, 'Economics & Capitalism'. Instead, I now realise that this thread is in the fucking 'Morals & Ethics' lah-lah-land, a lah-lah-land where people think that 'evil' actually exists. I assume that a moderator must have moved it here, because I know that Saeko wouldn't have created a thread in this subforum on purpose and I don't remember it being like this when the thread was originally created.

At any rate, I don't 'deal with' this stuff. I think it's retarded, so I'm out.

[Truth To Power]

For some reason I thought this thread was somewhere sane, like, 'Economics & Capitalism'.

E&C sane? That's a matter of opinion.

Instead, I now realise that this thread is in the fucking 'Morals & Ethics' lah-lah-land, a lah-lah-land where people think that 'evil' actually exists.

Evil definitely exists, and greed (unfortunately mistranslated as, "love of money") is its root. I can only hope you never have occasion to experience those facts being proved to you on your own body.

At any rate, I don't 'deal with' this stuff. I think it's retarded, so I'm out.

Bon voyage.

[Potemkin]

greed (unfortunately mistranslated as, "love of money")

Greed is the love of money. As Dante pointed out, most sins are committed out of love - the love of inordinate amounts of money, the love of power, the love of self, and so on....

[Truth To Power]

greed (unfortunately mistranslated as, "love of money")

Greed is the love of money.

No, it is not. It is excessive, rapacious desire for more than one needs or deserves. That "more" is often money, but may be power, status, luxury, pleasure, sex, etc. Rape -- you do understand that rape is evil, don't you? -- is not committed for love of money, but to satisfy an excessive, rapacious desire for more sexual power than one needs or deserves. All evil is rooted in greed for something.

As Dante pointed out, most sins are committed out of love - the love of inordinate amounts of money, the love of power, the love of self, and so on....

I don't care about sin, which is an ecclesiastical concept, not a synonym (;^) for evil.

Love of money is not greed if it is desire to DESERVE more money, and desire to deserve more money does not lead one to commit evil acts. Therefore, love of money is not the root of evil. Greed is. "Love of money" is a mistranslation.

[Potemkin]

No, it is not. It is excessive, rapacious desire for more than one needs or deserves.

And who determines how much money someone 'deserves'? Does Donald Trump 'deserve' to be a billionaire? Does anyone? If not, then why not? This is entirely subjective - a racist might decide that black people don't 'deserve' to be wealthy, or an anti-semite might decide that Jewish people don't 'deserve' to be a member of a country club. The capitalist system, at its root, is amoral and gives no consideration to what people 'deserve'. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

That "more" is often money, but may be power, status, luxury, pleasure, sex, etc. Rape -- you do understand that rape is evil, don't you? -- is not committed for love of money, but to satisfy an excessive, rapacious desire for more sexual power than one needs or deserves.

Rape is the confluence of two powerful loves - the love of sex, and the love of power.

All evil is rooted in greed for something.

And all greed is rooted in love.

I don't care about sin, which is an ecclesiastical concept, not a synonym (;^) for evil.

Evil is also an ecclesiastical concept. The very concepts and words which we use for ethics are rooted in an essentially religious view of the world. I don't see any way of avoiding this. As Nietzsche rather ruefully pointed out, God may be dead, but his ghost lives on in our grammar.

Love of money is not greed if it is desire to DESERVE more money, and desire to deserve more money does not lead one to commit evil acts.

There you go with that word 'deserve' again. Who gets to decide what other people 'deserve'? And what criteria do they use to decide this? This is like the 19th century Victorian petty moralistic talk about the "deserving poor" and the "undeserving poor". What they actually meant by the phrase "deserving poor" was "poor people who agree with our middle-class values".

Therefore, love of money is not the root of evil. Greed is. "Love of money" is a mistranslation.

I can only repeat what I have said earlier: greed is the love of money, and the excessive love of money leads one to commit sin in order to acquire it. I am using an essentially religious term here, because I think it's important to emphasise that our moral and ethical values are essentially religious in origin, whether we have a conscious belief in the existence of a deity or not.

[Truth To Power]

No, it is not. It is excessive, rapacious desire for more than one needs or deserves.

And who determines how much money someone 'deserves'?

That is determined by the facts, not some person's opinion. One deserves rewards commensurate with one's contributions, and to pay costs commensurate with deprivations imposed on others.

Does Donald Trump 'deserve' to be a billionaire?

The facts say no. He is not primarily a producer or contributor, but a scammer, con-man, and parasite. He gets his money by dishonest means.

Does anyone?

That's not clear. We would have to know the details of their contributions to production. I think it's possible, but I don't know of any actual examples. Certainly the celebrity ultra-rich -- Bill Gates, Carlos Helu, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffet, Li Ka-shing, the Koch brothers, Gina Rinehart, etc. -- don't.

If not, then why not?

Well, it is perhaps unlikely because people's productive abilities don't vary that much.

This is entirely subjective

No it's not. It's just a matter of facts that are difficult to ascertain.

- a racist might decide that black people don't 'deserve' to be wealthy, or an anti-semite might decide that Jewish people don't 'deserve' to be a member of a country club.

Such judgements are not based on the relevant facts. The Nazis measured noses, not IQs or professional achievement.

The capitalist system, at its root, is amoral and gives no consideration to what people 'deserve'.

No, it says certain people deserve certain things that they may or may not actually deserve, when we look at the relevant facts.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Divorcing economics from morality is definitely a bad thing. It is the pretence of being non-normative that allows modern mainstream neoclassical economics to pretend objectivity while actually serving evil by its despicable partiality to privilege.

That "more" is often money, but may be power, status, luxury, pleasure, sex, etc. Rape -- you do understand that rape is evil, don't you? -- is not committed for love of money, but to satisfy an excessive, rapacious desire for more sexual power than one needs or deserves.

Rape is the confluence of two powerful loves - the love of sex, and the love of power.

No, it is not love of sex, but a desire for an undeserved feeling of sexual power and competence. Rapists typically do not even enjoy sex, and get it over with as quickly as possible.

All evil is rooted in greed for something.

And all greed is rooted in love.

No. Desire and love are not the same. The rapist's greed for a feeling of sexual power is not grounded in love for either himself or his victim. It is grounded in his low sexual self-esteem and low regard for his victim.

I don't care about sin, which is an ecclesiastical concept, not a synonym (;^) for evil.

Evil is also an ecclesiastical concept.

Nope. Atheists know about evil. They just have no room for sin.

The very concepts and words which we use for ethics are rooted in an essentially religious view of the world.

Etymology is irrelevant: the words have to come from somewhere, and it's just a matter of historical acident that religions provided pre-scientific societies with their moral structure.

I don't see any way of avoiding this.

There's no reason to avoid it. It's irrelevant.

As Nietzsche rather ruefully pointed out, God may be dead, but his ghost lives on in our grammar.

Who cares?

Love of money is not greed if it is desire to DESERVE more money, and desire to deserve more money does not lead one to commit evil acts.

There you go with that word 'deserve' again. Who gets to decide what other people 'deserve'?

Who gets to decide how tall other people are?

And what criteria do they use to decide this?

Contribution and deprivation. These may not be as easy to measure as height, but they are still facts, not opinions.

This is like the 19th century Victorian petty moralistic talk about the "deserving poor" and the "undeserving poor".

There's nothing petty about it but the petty Marxist spin. We can think of the poor in three categories:

1. Victims of privilege: deserving
2. Victims of circumstance: deserving
3. Victims of their own vices: undeserving

What they actually meant by the phrase "deserving poor" was "poor people who agree with our middle-class values".

They may or may not have had idiosyncratic ideas of deserving. That doesn't change what deserving actually means.

Therefore, love of money is not the root of evil. Greed is. "Love of money" is a mistranslation.

I can only repeat what I have said earlier: greed is the love of money, and the excessive love of money leads one to commit sin in order to acquire it.

No, you are factually incorrect, as any good dictionary will confirm.

I am using an essentially religious term here, because I think it's important to emphasise that our moral and ethical values are essentially religious in origin,

Yours may be. Mine are not.

whether we have a conscious belief in the existence of a deity or not.

Nope. There are foundations of morality that do not depend on divine authority or metaphysical fairy tales.

[Potemkin]

There are foundations of morality that do not depend on divine authority or metaphysical fairy tales.

I think this is the essential root of our disagreement, Truth To Power, so I will concentrate on this. You claim that there are objective foundations to our moral judgements, and that these judgements (such as whether someone 'deserves' to be rich or not) can in principle be rationally quantified, and you further imply that political economy can be organised along such objective, rational lines in order to avoid separating economics from morality. All of your other points depend on this point, it seems to me. But you are making huge claims, Truth To Power. Some of the greatest minds in human history have tried for more than two millennia to put human morality and ethics on a firm, objective philosophical basis. Not one of them has ever succeeded. If you have succeeded where they have failed, then I for one would be profoundly grateful if you could share your insight with PoFo; nay, with the whole world. This could change everything....

[Noob]

I thought I'd contribute to this thread with a drive-by post. Apologies in advance to all parties for my intrusion.

That is determined by the facts, not some person's opinion. One deserves rewards commensurate with one's contributions, and to pay costs commensurate with deprivations imposed on others. [...] No it's not. It's just a matter of facts that are difficult to ascertain.

Facts cannot be severed from hermeneutics, that is, from a framework of understanding, and interpretation; distinctions between judgements of fact and judgements of value (see: Hume) only have relative value. Your "practical" utilitarianism based upon your own (seemingly) vague morality and objective EBUUUULLLLLL appears wanting and stale.

Who cares?

"Who cares where values come from?" Better question: who cares about your petty-moralism?

[Truth To Power]

There are foundations of morality that do not depend on divine authority or metaphysical fairy tales.

I think this is the essential root of our disagreement, Truth To Power, so I will concentrate on this. You claim that there are objective foundations to our moral judgements, and that these judgements (such as whether someone 'deserves' to be rich or not) can in principle be rationally quantified, and you further imply that political economy can be organised along such objective, rational lines in order to avoid separating economics from morality.

Correct.

All of your other points depend on this point, it seems to me.

I think they are rather independent, but never mind.

But you are making huge claims, Truth To Power.

At the risk of sounding grandiose...

Some of the greatest minds in human history have tried for more than two millennia to put human morality and ethics on a firm, objective philosophical basis. Not one of them has ever succeeded.

Yes, well, some of the greatest minds tried to figure out the motions of the planets for at least 5000 years, and none of them ever succeeded until Kepler did it.

If you have succeeded where they have failed, then I for one would be profoundly grateful if you could share your insight with PoFo; nay, with the whole world. This could change everything....

Indeed. The truth will make you free -- if you are willing to know it. I predict that you are not.

First, throw out all moral speculations before Darwin: those great minds literally did not know what they were talking about. Morality is an evolved quality of human beings. It evolved because it enhanced our reproductive success: it is far too important in our lives to have emerged by accident. So any attempt to ground morality in anything but evolutionary biology is futile and wrong-headed. Specifically, the social context of human existence -- the effect of societal success on one's individual genetic success -- made morality more successful than instinct or animal self-interest. It is not that moral people reliably out-compete immoral ones, but that societies of moral people reliably out-compete societies of immoral ones. To be a member of a failed society is an even greater calamity to one's genome than personal extinction, because the additional copies of one's genes that are carried by one's relatives are also jeopardized. The traitor may do well for himself, but he is an evolutionary dead end.

Over the eons, this reproductive advantage of the moral has produced the near-universal human moral capacity. But properly understood, it also tells us what is objectively moral: individual behavior that makes the individual's society better able to compete with -- i.e., out-compete -- other societies. Note that this does not mean sacrifice of the individual to society, because in order to be competitive, a society must engage its members' loyalty. So there is a delicate, empirically defined balance between what society requires of its members in order to compete with other societies, and the benefits it confers on its members in return for their loyalty. Of the latter, the most important are justice and security of rights, because they reduce the internal conflicts that would weaken society.

A competitive society therefore stimulates competition among its members to produce, not extort, to cooperate, not betray, to trade, not steal. To do this, its morality must, objectively, secure commensurate rewards to the productive, and protect its members from the depredations of those who seek to take by force or fraud what they have not earned. This ends up looking very much like rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of one's labor. We cannot say with exact precision what is moral and immoral in every case, because we don't know exactly what the long-term effect on reproductive success will be of any given behavior. But we can be pretty sure about some behaviors -- such as producing, trading and honesty vs lying, stealing and murder -- because their societal effects are so obvious.

This is what makes non-normative economics such a farce. Because it deals with production and trade, which profoundly affect societal reproductive competitiveness, a genuine empirical science of economics is as inherently normative as a genuine empirical science of medicine. The standard is societal health in the former case, individual health in the latter.

[Truth To Power]

That is determined by the facts, not some person's opinion. One deserves rewards commensurate with one's contributions, and to pay costs commensurate with deprivations imposed on others. [...] No it's not. It's just a matter of facts that are difficult to ascertain.

Facts cannot be severed from hermeneutics, that is, from a framework of understanding, and interpretation;

Yes, of course they can. Facts exist independently of any understanding or interpretation of them.

distinctions between judgements of fact and judgements of value (see: Hume) only have relative value.

Nope. Wrong. Hume was before Darwin, and therefore had no idea what he was talking about. He claimed, "One cannot deduce an ought from an is," but that is irrelevant. We don't have to deduce an ought from an is, because with Darwin's insight, we BEGIN with factual premises about what ought is. "Ought" is already there. Hume's objection is therefore as irrelevant and wrong-headed as Hegel's "proof" that there could only be seven planets.

Your "practical" utilitarianism based upon your own (seemingly) vague morality

It's not utilitarianism in any normal sense of the word, and it's only vague in that any complex empirical issue is necessarily indeterminate until adequate evidence is collected and analyzed. Consider the analogy with medicine: we don't know exactly what conditions and practices will lead to optimum health, and they may even be slightly different for different people; but we DO know many things that clearly impair health, and should be avoided. Similarly, we can't say for sure what behavior is most moral (i.e., will foster optimum societal competitiveness), but we can be much more confident that certain behaviors are immoral -- i.e., evil -- because they obviously reduce societal competitiveness.

and objective EBUUUULLLLLL

Who is keenest to dismiss and ridicule the idea of evil, hmmmmmm?

appears wanting and stale.

Did you erroneously believe your unsupported opinion constituted an argument?

Who cares?

"Who cares where values come from?"

The subject in that context was grammar, not values.

Better question: who cares about your petty-moralism?

I really don't care if you care about good and evil -- although not caring is a good working definition of being a sociopath. People who don't care about morality are rare, for good reasons already explained. To paraphrase Pericles, you may not care about good and evil, but they care about you.